http://taylor.evolt.org/koli-guriezo-app-conocer.php The Linux kernel was first released independently in , designed to be used with GNU software. Linux is available in many forms to suit many needs, from consumer-oriented systems for home use to distributions for use in specific industries. Check out this awesome infograph on Mac vs Pc by iTok. The Windows series of operating systems have the obvious benefit of market ubiquity. This means that the vast majority of software, hardware, support and training available is designed with Windows compatibility primarily in mind. OS X is known for its excellent, intuitive user interface.
Its main advantage continues to be that, due to inevitably having fewer users than Windows, there are far fewer viruses written for the system making it less vulnerable to attack. As well as being secure, the system is very stable, whilst maintaining high levels of performance — an advantage considering the impressive range of professional applications available. Linux has the immediate benefit of being free to obtain, and available for use without restrictions.
It is open source with a large, supportive community building a seemingly infinite range of free applications for use on Linux machines. Many many! Similar to OS X, Linux is less vulnerable to attack than a Windows PC, and Linux distributions are typically updated frequently — incredibly frequently compared to other operating systems — further enhancing their stability and security. Linux operating systems are perhaps the most widely ported — there are distributions used in a wide range of devices from smartphones to TiVo.
Windows is designed to run on PCs, whether bought new or built cheaply, so hardware costs are essentially determined by the consumer. However, the cost of buying the latest version of Windows can be prohibitive Windows XP is still the most widely used version , and the restrictive licensing inevitably forces each user to purchase a copy as they cannot be shared. Coupled with the similarly inevitable cost of purchasing the also-ubiquitous Microsoft Office suite and it is easy to see how users may prefer to simply wait until they need to buy a new PC bundled with Microsoft software.
Despite being Unix-based, OS X is also proprietary software. Furthermore, users are forced to purchase Apple hardware if they wish to use it; Apple computers remain much more expensive than PCs. Linux may be the cheapest, most easily available and customizable of the three, but the continued dominance of Windows not to mention the fact it comes pre-installed on most machines often deters home users from changing to this unfamiliar platform. Additionally, while Linux may have a large number of community-sourced applications available, it does not offer as many professional quality one as the other systems.
Minority use means some third party software such as popular PC games is yet to have a Linux release.
Heres what I do, Be I have to admit that I get a bit fed up with hearing about how many people's grandmothers use linux. My grandmother uses her computer for a minimal amount of surfing and emails, and I'm willing to bet I could set her up with a llinux build and she wouldn't even notice.
The fact is that she doesn't represent a standard user base, since never installing or changing anything will ensure that the system remains stable. I appreciate your kind words. You're right, though: Linux is definitely a hard system to learn.
Even with Ubuntu and Unity, it's still a pretty niche market. We'll see where it goes in the next years. If Linux wants to get popular, there's one quick way for it to do it. Go the way of Macintosh and create a distribution which is tested working perfectly on a single set of hardware. The distribution could then be polished and stabilised, and a deal could be created with a manufacturer to ship Linux boxes. This way, the user gets the hassle-free, stable, and works-out-of-the-box environment they're used to with Windows, the distribution developers get an initial support contract, the manufacturers get a new market, and the Linux community gets new members who are eased in slowly.
It would take an enormous amount of work, but with just a single hardware configuration to worry about it would be more than possible. It even opens the doors for a handful of hardware configurations, aimed at different markets netbook, laptop, desktop, gaming rig, ultrabook, etc. The "ubiquitous" Windows runs on only three or four platforms.
Linux runs on most, if not all, the hardware platforms in the IT world; from embedded systems to Raspeberry-Pi to PCs to mini-computers to mainframes. There are even distros designed specifically to run on Macintosh hardware. That's why I suggested making a specific distro for a specific hardware configuration. It wouldn't prevent it from being used on other hardware but the hardware it was designed for would be much more likely to be stable, and stable hardware makes things more appealing to both users and distributors.
Mac users pay dearly partly because Apple likes money, and partly because they are always trying to be on the bleeding edge. Getting hardware smaller, or shinier, or any number of a dozen things. In the past this was largely because Steve Jobs would accept nothing less, I'm not sure whether there's the same emphasis with Tim Cooke at the helm. I've recently found through MUO that there is someone doing this - System 76 https: If I was going to try Linux again, I'd definitely look to them.
It's good to know for sure that hardware issues would be minimal an support readily available. We first need to define our terms. If used as installed, Linux is no harder to learn than Windows. Even if you are talking about system administration, Linux is no harder to learn than Windows.
To properly administer either a Windows system or a Linux system one needs to know Command Line which does present a learning curve. The only time your statement is true is when a long time Windows GUI user tries to learn Linux command language. Over the past couple of years I've picked up a small amount of knowledge about the linux command line. I know enough to manage the server at work but installing software, even popular package using Yum, is still hard work.
Some aspects of Linux are hard to learn. Apple keeps all OS parts in "OS parts' of the file system, and install complete application as binary "images", ready linked except for OS libraries. The Linux "apt-get" is used by most "Application Managers", and will link the application code to the libraries found and pull down what is needed. So there is just one "qtlib" - all Qt applications will link to this by default you can override. Now, install a new application that requires and updated version of the Qt libraries, and all applications will suddenly get a new variant of the library installed.
Apple use a ". So, for each Qt application, there are a complete set of Qt libraries - unless Apple approves of these as a "system component". Linux use an old Unix "make" way. Apple have elected to use disk space and an increased working set giving less efficient computers.
Please, test ChaletOS distro I use with my clients Not really. I use the terminal mostly for three things: Most non-power users won't use the terminal more than every few months, if that. The one time they might use it is if following instructions from someone on a forum to fix an issue. The driver issue these days is really limited - really, as it always has been - to proprietary parts on laptops such as trackpads, and really NEW hardware such as printers where the available open source drivers might not yet support every feature.
Considering that Windows printers tend to come with several hundred megabytes of software no one needs, that's not much of a problem. The main issue with Linux these days is sound. There are too many different sound subsystems, and frequently sound does not work entirely correctly after a clean install. And it can be a bear to resolve it - you really need to go to the forums for your distro to fix it since it usually entails running forum-developed scripts to find out what sound system actually is running.
All in all, for most Windows users, switching to Linux is relatively painless these days, as long as they grasp the file structure and the different way of handling software installation. Windows 7 is much more stable than Windows XP - but that's because Microsoft put the five years or more of developing Vista and the couple more years developing 7 into Whereas Linux has been stable with minor bugs for the two main desktops for the last twelve years or more.
If you ever have a problem with Linux, it's most likely going to be a desktop issue, not a driver or kernel issue. The biggest problem in switching from Windows to Linux is unlearn "the Windows way" of doing things. Many people who switch expect Linux to be exactly like Windows but with a different name. To be fair, someone who knows only Linux will find switching to Windows hard but only because of having to unlearn "the Linux way". We all had to learn from scratch. I switched to it in excitement but find out hard to deal with it so I switched back to XP.
Everywhere you got problem. Always you've to post problem in forums and they say you to use terminal. Things are hard there. That has not been my experience. I typed the command as given to me in a book or from a person online and it usually didn't work as I was told it would. How does one follow instructions when the result is different? This is something that happened to me consistently. No, it is NOT easy.
That is my main complaint about Linux users; they keep saying how easy it is, but it just never, never, EVER is easy. You are one annoying little It's not. It takes effort, and it takes persistence. Nevertheless, it's not ridiculously hard. You just have to have the right mindset.
And you do reap the rewards. The more skilled you are at bash, etc, the more productive you can be, the more you can tweak the system to your liking. Windows doesn't really have that - they have sacrificed ease of usage for ease of learning. I guess it must have atrophied your brain. Um, 'ordinary folks'? I don't think so little boy.
Go play with your video games and leave civil discussion to the adults, you troll. I apologize for wining. I'm all done. You are welcome to abuse the nice adults on this board until you either grow up or a moderator comes along and scraps your rude shit off of this board. We are ALL random 'turds'. How exactly am I being a pain in your ass? So sorry to have bothered you with my participation. Do plz have mercy on me Your Highness. Yes, it would be a year if you went to a local Comm College to cover this material.
Right off the bat, I must apologize for being overly rude in my previous response. Nevertheless, I will respond to your claims as many of them are erroneous and misleading. First of, you make quite a lot of assumptions. I understand more mature internet users often pull the "little boy" card when confronted with such a reply as mine was, perhaps to keep their pride intact "after all, Elmo's only a little boy, which means I don't have to consider anything he said". I am not 'a little boy'. I am not 'young'. I have never played a video game in my life, and I am most definitely not a troll.
I am not here to abuse any nice adults, and your statement about how my reply shows the uselessness of the Linux community is unfounded as I have never contributed to or made significant use of the Linux community. Furthermore, I am NOT a programmer. Having addressed those assumptions, I'll now address some other parts of your reply.
Now, look, I can imagine an 'over 40' year old struggling with Linux, and if you were simply railing about how difficult Linux was for older users, than you would have been completely justified in making such a claim. However, you did not make this claim. You claimed multiple times that Linux was only for programmers, which is blatantly false. I guess you can't comprehend normal people being able to come to grips with Linux when you yourself have not.
And YES, there are many people even the over 40s crowd, though I dare say they make up a much smaller percentage overall who use Linux who DO NOT have a background in computer technology. Linux gurus out there, I know you would want to flay me alive for such an inadequate explanation that I am about to embark upon, but please understand that I am just trying to simplify everything for dear, over-forty-years-old Clarkie. Let's begin. In any Operating System I assume you know what an Operating System is , there is a mysterious thing called a 'kernel.
It makes all the hardware the physical components of your computer work. Linux is just a kernel. Certain people and organisations took the Linux kernel and made it usable by adding extra functionality - for instance, adding GUIs GUI stands for Graphical User Interface and desktops and etc. Different groups made different bundle of extra functionality, and these bundles are called 'Distributions. Some groups added lots and lots of extra functionality and made everything quite easy to use - these are easy distros to learn.
Having got that out of the way, the only distro I can imagine which would take a year-long course to cover at a community college would be some hard distros like Gentoo, Slackware, etc. And posting extremely newbie questions, as you must have done since you were new to Linux in such hard distros is a sure fire way to get flamed, which must have therefore promoted in your mind the idea that the Linux community is a bunch of supercilious programmers. I am sorry for your bad experience, but perhaps an easier distribution more fitting to your abilities may help to erase the horrific memories of Slackware going into a kernel panic after you made a single keystroke error.
Distributions like Ubuntu or Mint, on the other hand, are extremely easy to learn how to use. Here are their websites: I myself put Ubuntu on my Mum's who is 68 computer, and after telling her "Click this to go to the internet, click that to go to your emails, click that to open files If you have tried before to use these distros and failed, the only possibility I can conceive is that you have some weird hardware, in which case you can stick to Windows. If some other thing happened, I encourage you to post what screwed up, and maybe we can help. Great article, answers a few of my questions but: I have had a temptation to try Linux for a long while now but always been put off by the total lack of understanding it.
I mean if I changed over to that system do I have to buy a complete set of software to be able to use it? For example a Linux based Office system or a browser that is compatable. Is software easily available for the Linux system free or paid for? Can I dual boot between Windows 7 and Linux or is it a case of wipe everything and go for it?
Is there software that will convert my Office files to something that can be read by a Linux based system? A few questions that I know that I could Google the answers but interested to here what the members have to say. I had these same questions when I wanted to start using Linux. You will have to use a completely different set of software in Linux. But most of the generic software manufacturers also make a Linux release. And most of these are free. Some are even open source.
It all depends on what you want to do. I in fact, am an obsessed gamer. So I just decided to dual boot Windows and Linux. But before you do this, you would want to take a look at pointers on how to install Linux alongside Windows. I found most of my questions answered satisfactorily. As for your office files, I did try to use Openoffice for a while. But did not feel it was as good as MS Office. Then again, it's a matter of preference. I hope you will be switching soon. Linux is a refreshingly free environment.
That means you would have to learn and unlearn quite a few things. All the best for that! Fortunately you can usually find free software that will do what you want. The exceptions are in areas like video editing - none of the free video editing packages are comparable to Adobe Premiere or Final Cut. All the browsers are compatible. You can use LibreOffice which has probably eighty to ninety percent of the capability of Microsoft Office. The exception is if you have a bunch of custom VBA macros in Office.
LibreOffice can't handle them. This is the main reason corporations have not switched from Office - all the in-house developed macros and VBA programs. A ton of free stuff. Not as much as free stuff on Windows, but plenty. There are also commercial programs. Dual booting is pretty easy. Most Linux distros on install will detect a Windows installation, so you can use the partition manager to shrink down the Windows system and free up space for Linux.
LibreOffice can already read the files. There may be some discrepancies in formatting which can usually be fixed. The exception, as I noted above, is macros. You'd have to redo those.
Nov 2, Three operating systems – Windows, Macintosh, and Linux – dominate the world of computing today. But what sets them apart?. Apr 28, Linux and Mac OS X are UNIX type of operating systems. They are so simillar it can be hard to draw a distinction between them. Linux was written from the.
The best bet to get questions like these answered is to visit some of the Linux "newbie" forums out there and describe exactly what you use Windows for and what software you run on Windows and let people tell you what will work and what won't on Linux and whether there are work-arounds. I had to relearn Windows and Linux simultaneously twelve years ago and I can safely say that there really isn't a penny's worth of difference between them in terms of difficulty in learning how to use them.
It's just a matter of being open to the differences and being patient when getting to know something new when changing from one to the other. Thanks very much for the advice Pavan and Richard.
I am thinking of giving it a go next weekend but first a little more reading and understanding. Going to take the dual boot option so that if all else fails then I can still use MS Office in Windows. Richard mentioned VirtualBox or VMware. IMHO, before you try a dual boot I would suggest you try his advise first if for no other reason, to make sure Linux is really something you want.
I think you'll be satisfied but it is a lot easier to remove it from a virtual source than a dual boot. Ubuntu Lots of luck and welcome. Richard Steven Hack already answered your questions but I recommend that If you're going to test the system to see how it suits you, you should start with WUBI. If you do anything at all that damages the installation, you simply reboot back into Windows and uninstall.
You can repeat install, uninstall as often as you like. Wubu modifies the bootup sequence, so when you turn on your computer you'll see Windows as the default option followed by Ubuntu.
Uninstalling will remove the Ubuntu option as well the directory c: I agree with Pax. WUBI installs straight into Windows like any other program. It sets up a partition within Windows that is reserved solely for Ubuntu and you access Ubuntu through a dual-boot config that WUBI sets up for you. If you want to remove it, you uninstall it just like any other program. After all, the Linux world does start and end with Ubuntu.
There are hundreds of Linux distributions available for download from sites like Distrowatch. Having said that, Ubuntu is the best choice for those newly switching from Windows because it gives the closest approximation of the Windows experience. In fact, Mark Shuttleworth has made it his life's work to make Ubuntu into the Windows of the Linux world. I never suggest the installation through WUBI due to its lack of performance compared to installation on its own partition. I always suggest to install Linux on its partition so you can get the best performance with Linux.
This is a perfect example of just how tangled up Linux system administration is. NOW you need to learn how to partition your drive, including finding partitioning software and learning to use it all at a command line, using the proper syntax for your shell and flavor of Linux. There is about a full year of intense computer training you must learn in order to do these things. People seem to assume that the common user knows all of these programming skills.
These are NOT skills the common user posses! Stop expecting people to have the equivalent of a programmer's education. They don't and shouldn't be expected to. I hate sys admin work. I have a computer to use it, not to have to constantly tweek it. I will never touch it again unless I have a computer guru to do it for me. Full year of intensive training? Are you stoned? You must be talking about Gentoo or Slackware or LFS or something - Ubuntu and Fedora and all those Debian-style distributions provide graphical tools for things like partitioning.
In fact, now there are even GUIs for package managers! A full year? Geez, you must be high. It took me all of a few seconds to figure out how yum worked when I was new to Linux on Fedora , a few days to get the hang of bash, and a few weeks to make some useful scripts in it. Partitioning was handled by the graphical installation, but 6 months after, having migrated to Gentoo, it took me all of about ten minutes to get my head around fdisk. Now, considering that most Linux users will be using something 50 times more user friendly, I can't see a 12 month intensive course coming out of that.
I can only conclude one of three things:. There are exceptions but they are few and far between. Most of them are enterprise-grade programs. There are at least 4 or 5 popular Linux Office suites and they will read Of the top of my head one format that there are no Linux readers for is WebEx file. Also, MS Office will not work in Linux. You will have to re-write them using the macro language of the Linux Office suite that you will use.
However, there is one immutable condition. MS used the ten discrepancies to their advantage, claiming that the alternative could not be used. The problem was however, that all the 10 discrepancies were well documented by Microsoft, and both LibreOffice and OpenOffice performed as documented, MS Office did not.
The moment existence of bugs and shortcomings becomes a part of the compatibility dispute we have a problem. It is incredibly difficult to repeat other's mitakes when you know how to do it right. The survey was conducted for Norwegian municipalities, to allow OpenOffice and LibreOffice being offered by local consultants. It is only published in Norwegian. Great article.. I't wasn't easy, but worth it. This kind of articles helped me a lot. I hope someone reads this and find some useful facts about Linux before giving up Windows.
To Add somethings.. Linux also have very little virus threats and you won't have the constant fear of something horrible happening every time you plugs in somebody's flash dive. Linux can get viruses, but the userbase is so small there's no-one writing them. I've been arguing the same about Mac computers for the past 10 years and it's only recently that the truth of the matter is coming out. Yes, you are right.
Linux can get virus. Unix kernel level exploit research goes all the way back to and the first root kit was developed in Jailbreaking an iPhone is a sort of Unix kernel level exploit. These apply equally to Linux in principle. That said currently there's only a slight chance of getting a Linux infection compared to Windows. Look at how tiny the list of Linux malware is here.
Hmm - I contest you to describe HOW a virus can be planted on Linux without having the root password. What I see is Java code that executes and reads files and address books, and publish this on the net - this is a site issue, where you have to trust the sites you visit. A virus is a piece of code that remains after you have left the site and changes your system and send sensitive information to others. They could have solved this by a simple automatic "SignOff" application that captured that you detached from your office network, and then captured that you attached the next morning.
But now they make money by selling additional virus-scanning software "malware scanners" , and you soon need a consultant with a PhD in MS to keep abreast on "security fixes". The first Internet malware were on Unix, and since then, ways of avoiding the nuisance has been implemented here, and inherited by Linux. Linux doesn't have a registry per se, but they usually have an "equivalent" like GConf for Gnome users.
GConf and similar address how the screen looks - the graphical interface only well and the menus - MacOS has dropped that. But is allows you to find someone that can make your PC look and feel like Windows 8. The mucking around with users, access rights, grants to applications is not covered. And good is that. On Linux, you can do this by making "root" the owner of the menus, and "read" access to the group of users that needs the applications, and hide them by "no access" to others.
This way you can protect the novice users from "Terminal" and "X11" and they cannot run shell scripts. Every time I install Linux it ends with frustration within a few days. Nowdays if you install Ubuntu it will work out of the box OK most of the time, but try to install a program not available on the package manager repos, or updating your drivers or a plethora of other things and you'll end up pulling your hair. You can google all you want but each time you do you'll run into outdated information that doesn't apply any more, or missing crucial and sometimes basic information, or a command doesn't work on your PC because the guide or user didn't mention you needed a program and now you need to google where to get the program and how to install it to get your other program to run, and then that program won't install because it's missing dependencies and that's when you say "screw this, I didn't have any these issues on Windows" and just go back.
I've gone through this cycle at least 30 times in the past 3 years. This undoubtedly comes from how fragmented it is. An operating system is considered to be the backbone of any system. Without an operating system, user and system cannot interact. It acts as a mediator between both of these. Microsoft developed the Windows operating system. Linux is UNIX like a source software and can use an operating system which provides full memory protection and multi-tasking operations.
It is an open d by anyone. These are the most used operating systems. When it comes to the risk of malware, Windows is the most prone. This is due to a larger user base. Linux is very unlikely to be affected by malware. MAC is similar when it comes to Malware. Linux is free and anyone can download and use it. In addition to this Windows also provides recycle bin where all deleted files can be stored.
Recycle bin can be configured to increase its size. Linux has a completely different file structure form Windows and MAC. It was developed with a different code base. It stores data in the form of a tree. There is a single file tree and all your drives are mounted over this tree. Registry Windows registry is a master database which is used to store all settings on your computer.
It is responsible to store all user information with its passwords and device relate information. The registry also has an editor which allows you to view all keys and values or even drivers if necessary. MAC stores all application settings in a series of. These are stored at:. All application setting is stored on program basis under the different users in the same hierarchy format of the files being stored. There is no centralized database for storing these details and so periodic cleaning is also not required.
Interchangeable Interfaces Windows interface was not interchangeable until Windows 8.